Applications and Case Studies – Part I

Applications and Case Studies – Part I
CHAPTER 11

Usage Conditions DO NOT COPY, TRANSLATE OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT.
The contents of this document can be freely used for personal or classroom use ONLY. Although the material contained in this document is freely available, it is not public domain. Its contents, in whole or in part (including graphics and datasets), cannot be copied and published in ANY form (printed or electronic) without consent. If you have accessed this document through a third party (such as a content farm), keep in mind that this party is illegally redistributing this content. Please refer to the true source ( instead of the third party. Permission to use any graphic material herein in any form of publication, such as an article, a book or a conference presentation, on any media must be requested prior to use. Information cited from this document should be referred as: Rodrigue, J-P et al. (2018) The Geography of Transport Systems, Hofstra University, Department of Global Studies & Geography, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Strategic Maritime Passages
Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Maritime Shipping Routes and Strategic Locations
Source: Shipping density data adapted from National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, A Global Map of Human Impacts to Marine Ecosystems. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Potential Impacts of Transoceanic Passages and Canals
Operational Impacts Improved capacity, reliability and transit time. Lower unit transit costs. Substitution Impacts Cargo diversion. Changes in routing and transshipment. Induced Impacts New and expanded trade relations. Development of transshipment hubs and logistics zones.

Capacity of Key Strategic Passages
Panama / Expanded Suez Malacca Minimum depth 12 meters (40 feet) / 15.2 (50 feet) 24 meters (78 feet) 21 meters (68 feet) Length 64 km 193 km 800 km Standard Panamax / New-Panamax Suez-max Malacca-max Ship capacity 65,000 dwt / 119,000 dwt 240,000 dwt TEU equivalent 4,500 / 12,500 22,000 20,000 Capacity (transits per day) 45 / 57 100 500 (approx.) Transits (day | year) 36 | 14,000 47 | 17,000 210 | 75,000 Average transit time 16.5 hours 14 hours 20 hours Share of global maritime trade About 5% About 15% About 30% Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Maritime Chokepoints: Capacity, Limitations and Threats
Crossings (2009) Additional Capacity Limitation Threat (disruption potential) Hormuz 50,000 Limited Narrow corridors (two 3 km wide channels) Iran Bab-el- Mandeb 22,000 Substantial Narrow corridors Piracy / Terrorism Suez 17,000 Good 240,000 dwt and convoy size Political instability in Egypt, Terrorism Bosporus Very limited Ship size and length; 210,000 dwt Restrictions by Turkey; navigation accident Malacca 60,000 300,000 dwt Piracy Panama 14,000 Limited (expansion in 2016) 65,000 dwt (120,000 dwt after expansion) No significant Source: adapted from Rodrigue, J-P (2004) “Straits, Passages and Chokepoints: A Maritime Geostrategy of Petroleum Distribution”, Les Cahiers de Geographie du Quebec, Vol. 48, No. 135, pp Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Distance and Time Deviations from Malacca Strait Route
VLCC (Jubail / Ulsan) Distance (nautical miles) Time Deviation (nautical miles / hours) Malacca Strait 12,426 828.4 0 / 0 Lombok Strait 14,958 997.2 2,532 / 168.8 6,500 TEU Containership (Suez / Busan) 14,860 582.8 Sunda Strait 15,946 625.4 1,086 / 42.6 17,348 680.4 2,488 / 97.6 Source: P.J. Rimmer and P.T.W. Lee (2007) “Repercussions of Impeding Shipping in the Malacca and Singapore Straits”, Journal of International Logistics and Trade, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 7-26 Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Dry Canal Projects in Central America

Tonnage and Number of Transits, Panama Canal, 1915-2018
Source: Panama Canal Authority (Autoridad Del Canal De Panama). For fiscal year (October to September). Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Container Cargo Market Share Northeast Asia to the United States East Coast
Source: Panama Canal Authority. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Central American Canal Routes Considered

Main Components of the Panama Canal

Shipping Rate from Shanghai to Selected North American Ports for a 40 Foot Container, Mid 2010
Vancouver Montreal $2,300 $2,110 $4,040 $3,950 New York $3,700 $1,830 Los Angeles $2,620 $1,400 Houston $3,510 $2,560 Source for equivalence lines: WorleyParsons and Princeton Consultants, Inc. $1,300 $2,100 Inbound Outbound Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Value Proposition of Panama

Main Trade Routes Using the Panama Canal, 2015
West Coast US East Coast Europe 6.9 M tons 82.1 M tons Asia 13.6 M tons WCCA 16.1 M tons 36.6 M tons WCSA Source: Panama Canal Authority. WCCA: West Coast Central America WCSA: West Coast South America Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Tonnage Changes for Main Trade Routes Using the Panama Canal, 2012-15

Main Routing Alternatives between the Pacific and Atlantic

Main Export-Oriented Regions and Shipping Routes Servicing North America

Conventional Direct Transshipment Circum-Equatorial
North Atlantic Central Atlantic South Atlantic / Gulf Transshipment Circum-Equatorial North Atlantic North Atlantic Central Atlantic Central Atlantic Source: adapted from Ashar, A. (2006) Revolution #4, Containerization International, December, pp South Atlantic / Gulf South Atlantic / Gulf Caribbean Transshipment Triangle Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Conventional Direct Transshipment Circum-Equatorial North Atlantic
Central Atlantic South Atlantic / Gulf Conventional Direct North Atlantic North Atlantic Central Atlantic Central Atlantic Caribbean Transshipment Triangle South Atlantic / Gulf South Atlantic / Gulf Transshipment Circum-Equatorial Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Conventional Direct Transshipment Circum-Equatorial North Atlantic
Central Atlantic South Atlantic / Gulf Conventional Direct North Atlantic North Atlantic Central Atlantic Central Atlantic South Atlantic / Gulf South Atlantic / Gulf Caribbean Transshipment Triangle Transshipment Circum-Equatorial Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Panama Transshipment Cluster
Caribbean Sea CCT (Evergreen): 790,000 TEU MIT (SSA): 1,975,000 TEU Cristobal (HPH): 813,000 TEU Panama Colon Container Port (2020?) 1 4 Atlantic Canal Expansion 1 Gatun Locks Pedro Miguel Lock Miraflores Locks Agua Clara Locks Cocoli Locks Atlantic Bridge (2017) Lake Gatun 2 3 4 Panama Canal Railway: 355,000 units 5 Centennial Bridge Pacific Canal Expansion 2 Corozal Container Terminal (2018?) 5 3 Balboa (HPH): 3,078,000 TEU Panama International Terminal (PSA): 216,000 TEU Bridge of the Americas Pacific Ocean Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Terminal Traffic (2015) Operator Operations Notes
Manzanillo International Terminals (MIT) 1.97 M TEU Carrix (SSA) 1995 First modern terminal facility. 20 years lease renewed in 2013 (expires in 2033) Cristobal 0.81 M TEU Panama Ports Company (HPH) 1996 25 years lease (expiring in 2022). Can be renewed for another 25 years. Colon Container Terminal (CCT) 0.79 M TEU Evergreen 1997 20 years lease extended another 20 years in 2016. Panama International Terminal 0.22 M TEU PSA 2012 Expansion to a 2 M TEU capacity in 2017 Balboa 3.08 M TEU Corozal Container Terminal Phase 1 (3.2M TEU capacity) Bidding process ongoing ? 20 years concession Panama Colon Container Port (PCCP) 2.5 M TEU capacity 2020? 18 meters draft Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Panamanian Ports, 1995-2017
Source: Autoridad Maritima de Panama Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Panama Canal, 1995-2016

Container Traffic at Main Ports around the Panama Canal

Container Traffic Handled by the Panama Canal Railway, 2001-2014 (units)
Source: Panama Canal Railway Company. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Traffic Transiting through the Panama Canal (in number of Ships)

Main Cargo Transited by the Panama Canal

Main Cargo Transited by the Panama Canal by Direction, 2013

Average Transit Times for the Panama Canal, 2002-2012

Average Panama Canal Water Time, 1999-2007 (hours)

Comparative Characteristics of the Panama Canal Expansion
Panamax (1914-) Neo Panamax (2016) Beam 32 m (106 feet) 49 m (160 feet) Length 294 m (965 feet) 366 m (1,200 feet) Draft 12 m (40 feet) 15.2 m (50 feet) Container Vessel Capacity 4,500 TEU 12,500 TEU Bulk Carrier Capacity 52,000 DWT 119,000 DWT Locks Miter gates (lock access guidance by electric locomotives) Three lock systems: Gatun Locks (3 stages; 85 feet) Pedro Miguel Lock (1 stage; 31 feet) Miraflores Locks (2 stages; 54 feet) Rolling gates (lock access guidance by tug boats) Two lock systems: Atlantic Locks (3 stages) Pacific Locks (3 stages) Cost $387 million $5.4 billion Annual Capacity (# of ships) 13,500 – 14,000 16,000 Source: Panama Canal Authority. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Challenges to the Expansion of the Panama Canal
Issue Challenge Aggregate demand Potential shift in demand growth patterns (less growth in North America and more growth in Latin America) Maritime shipping Higher shipping costs and slow steaming; Tolls taking a large share of the benefits of economies of scale Economies of scale Less ship calls and traffic concentration Transshipment hubs Changes in the transshipment dynamics (hub concentration); "Funnel effect" towards Panama West Coast Ports Improved competitiveness of West Coast ports through better hinterland access Railways Improved competitiveness of North American rail corridors; Emerging dichotomy between East Coast and West Coast railways Gateways New points of entry to service markets (e.g. Lazaro Cardenas, Prince Rupert) Suez Canal Increasing competitiveness of the Suez Route; Potential of the Cape Route Sourcing Changes in sourcing strategies (e.g. near sourcing) Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Panama’s Changing Role in the Global Transport System
Transit (Pre 1914) Tollbooth and Connectivity ( s) Transshipment Hub (1990s-2000s) Logistics Platform (2010s-?) Added Value Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Panama’s Changing Role in the Global Transport System
Transit Tollbooth Trans-shipment Logistics Platform Pre 1914 s 1990s-2000s 2010s-? Trails Panama Railway (1855) Panama Canal Colon Free Trade Zone (1947) Container Terminals (1995-) Panama Canal Railway (2001) Canal Expansion (2016) Tocumen Airport Logistics zones Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Main East and Gulf Coasts Port Infrastructure Developments Associated with the Expansion of the Panama Canal Port Channel Clearance Port Infrastructure Hinterland Access Boston Plans to dredge the channel depth from 40 to 48 feet under study (no specific timeline). New York Harbor channels dredged to 50 feet (completed in 2014). Clearance improvement of the Bayonne Bridge (to be completed in 2017). Expansion of Global Terminal completed in Delivery of 5 super-post Panamax cranes in 2015. ExpressRail improvements (South Hudson Intermodal Facility). Crescent Corridor (CSX) Philadelphia Plans to dredge the Delaware River channel from 40 to 45 feet (to be completed in 2017). Baltimore No plans (currently at 50 feet). Plans to dredge several berths to 50 feet (no timeline specified). 4 super-post Panamax cranes installed in 2013 at Seagirt Marine Terminal. National Gateway Project (CSX) Hampton Roads Discussions to dredge from the current draft of 50 feet to 55 feet (no specific timeline). Craney Island Eastward Expansion project (first phase to open by 2025). National Gateway Project (CSX). Heartland Corridor (NS) Wilmington, NC Plans to dredge the port channel from 42 to 44 feet (to start in 2019). Charleston Plans to dredge the port channel from 45 to 52 feet (to be completed in 2018/19). South Carolina Inland Port (NS) (opened in 2013). Palmetto Railways Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) Savannah Dredging the port channel from 42 to 47 feet under way (to be completed in 2018). Construction of a new terminal gate (completed in 2016). 8 super-post Panamax cranes to be purchased. Jacksonville Plans to dredge from the current draft of 40 feet to 47 feet. (expected to start in subject to funding). New container facility at Dames Point opened in 2009. Dames Point Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (CSX) (completed in 2015) Everglades Plans to dredge from the current draft of 42 feet to 46 feet. (expected to be completed in 2017). Plans to purchase 5 post Panamax cranes between 2019 and Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (CSX) (completed in 2014) Miami Harbor channel dredged from 42 to 50 feet (completed in 2014). 7 super-post Panamax cranes installed in 2013. PortMiami tunnel (completed in 2014). PortMiami- Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway connection (completed in 2014). Mobile Plans to dredge harbor channel from 45 to 50 feet (no timeline specified). Intermodal rail terminal adjacent to port planned (no specific timeline) New Orleans New Louisiana International Gulf Transfer Terminal (no specific timeline) Crescent Corridor (CSX) Houston Plans to dredge access channels to main container terminals from 40 to 45 feet (to be completed in 2016). Bayport and Barbour Cuts terminal improvements. Broadway Second Main Track project (to begin in 2016) Source: Web Sites and press releases of port authorities. Infrastructure projects were retained on the ground of their potential relation with the Panama Canal expansion. Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2015) “The Legacy and Future of the Panama Canal: From Point of Transit to Transshipment Hub”, TR News 296. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Nicaragua Canal Project

Container Traffic at Main Colombian Ports, 1995-2015

Container Traffic at Main Moroccan Ports, 1995-2015

Shipping Lanes and Strategic Passages in Pacific Asia

Shipping Lanes, Strategic Passages and Oil Reserves in the Middle East
Source: Energy Information Administration, World Oil Transit Chokepoints & BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Development of the Suez Canal, 1869-2015
Item 1869 1956 1962 1980 1994 1996 2001 2010 2015 Overall Length (km) 164 175 189.8 191.8 193.3 Width at 11m Depth (meters) 44 60 89 160 210 317 Maximum Draft (feet) 22 35 38 53 56 58 62 66 Doubled Parts (km) none 29 78 79 80.5 113 Water Depth (meters) 10 14 15.5 19.5 20.5 21 22.5 24 Maximum Tonnage (dwt) 5,000 30,000 80,000 150,000 180,000 185,000 210,000 220,000 240,000 Source: adapted from Suez Canal Authority. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Suez Canal, 1995-2015

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Suez Canal

Tonnage and Number of Transits, Suez Canal, 1975-2017
Source: Suez Canal Authority. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Main Cargo Transited by the Suez Canal

Suez Canal Toll per Net Tonnage, 2012
Source: calculated from Suez Canal Authority. As of 2012, there were no containerships above 100,000 net tons Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Malacca, 1995-2016

Container Traffic at Main Ports around the Strait of Malacca

Main Routing Alternatives between East Asia and Northern Europe
Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2011) "Emerging Global Networks in the Container Terminal Operating Industry", in T. Notteboom (ed) Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and Logistics, Brussels: Academic & Scientific Publishers. pp ISBN Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Hormuz, 1995-2016

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Hormuz

Container Traffic Handled at the Main United Arab Emirates Ports, 1995-2016
Source: Government of Dubai, Government of Abu Dhabi. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Largest Ship Size Handled by the Panama Canal and Suez Canal by Ship Class
Ship Type Panama (Old Locks) Panama (New Locks) Suez Container Panamax (4,500 TEU) New Panamax (12,500 TEU) Triple E (18,000 TEU) Tanker Panamax (80,000 DWT) Aframax (120,000 DWT) Suezmax (200,000 DWT) Bulker Capesize (200,000 DWT) VLOC (300,000 DWT) LNG Panamax (40,000 DWT) Post Panamax (200,000 DWT) Q-Flex (216,000 DWT) Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Traffic at the Strait of Malacca
Traffic Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 VLCC 3163 3303 3301 3487 3477 Tanker Vessels 13343 14276 14591 15667 16403 LNG / LPG Carriers 2962 3086 3141 3277 3343 Cargo Vessels 6603 6476 6065 6193 6624 Container Vessels 18283 20101 20091 19575 20187 Bulk Carriers 4708 5370 5754 6256 6531 Other 6895 6702 7091 7879 7071 Total Vessels 55957 59314 60034 62334 63636 Average daily traffic 153 163 164 171 194 Source: Marine Department Malaysia (2005) Malacca Vessel Traffic Monitoring System, Statistical Report, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Traffic at the Strait of Malacca
Source: Marine Department Malaysia (2005) Malacca Vessel Traffic Monitoring System, Statistical Report, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Dardanelles and Bosporus Passages

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Gibraltar, 1995-2016

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Gibraltar

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Oresund, 1995-2016

Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Oresund

Connectivity Pattern of the World’s Major Maritime Bottlenecks
Oresund Hormuz Gibraltar Suez Panama Malacca Panama Gibraltar Oresund Suez Hormuz Malacca 11.7 M TEU TI: 75% 17.1 M TEU TI: 80% 22.2 M TEU TI: 35% 15.6 M TEU TI: 60% 30.2 M TEU TI: 75% 59.4 M TEU TI: 80% Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Transcontinental Bridges

Types of Landbridges Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The North American Landbridge

Intermodal Rail Flows, 2006 Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Circum-Hemispheric Rings of Circulation

The Eurasian Landbridge

The Northern East-West Freight Corridor
Source: International Union of Railways (2004) The Northern East West (N.E.W.) Freight Corridor, Transportutvikling AS. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Distance to New York from Eastern China (in km)

Transport Corridors in North America

Monthly Value of Surface Trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico, 1993-2016 (USD)
Source: BTS, Transportation Statistics Annual Report, Note: Trade includes imports and exports. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The North-American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions
Source: Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2010) "Comparative North American and European Gateway Logistics: The Regionalism of Freight Distribution", Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions

Main Container Ports, Trade Corridors and Distribution Hubs in North America
Source: Container port data from Containerization International. Distribution hubs data from Cushman & Wakefield (2009) New Age of Trade: The Americas, Industrial white paper for NAIOP Research Foundation, January Based on weighted transportation, industry, and labor force measures. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Some North American Trade Corridor Initiatives

North American Rail Freight Transport System
Source: CTA Railroad Network, Oakridge National Laboratory. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Market Accessibility of Major North American Freight Distribution Clusters

Transit Times from Shanghai and North American Routing Options (in Days)
12 Prince Rupert Vancouver 4 13 8 Seattle / Tacoma 5 Toronto Oakland 5 3 Chicago 26 13 New York Los Angeles 25 Norfolk 5 Atlanta 14 Dallas Savannah/Charleston 5 25 28 Houston Source: adapted from G. Arnold (2009) “Global Supply Chain Trends and the Impact on North American Distribution Markets", Talking Freight Seminar, US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. 8 19 Lazaro Cardenas 22 Panama Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Share of the Northeast Asia – U.S. East Coast Route by Option

Factors Impacting North American Freight Distribution in View of the Panama Canal Expansion
Impacts Macroeconomic factors Aggregate demand changes Level and composition of cargo. Structure of production changes Regionalization of production (NAFTA). Production shifts within Asia (e.g. Vietnam and Indonesia). Operational factors Economies of scale in shipping Changes in the frequency of services, port calls and network configuration. Shipping costs structure (e.g. tolls and fuel) Comparative advantages of respective routing options (landbridge, Suez, all-water). Competitive factors Response from East and West coast ports Comparative advantages of port selection. New transshipment hubs. Response from railways Comparative advantages of inland routes. Response from Suez Canal and transshipment hubs Comparative advantages of routing options. New gateways Additional inland routing options (e.g. Prince Rupert and Lazaro Cardenas). Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

High Speed Trains Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

World High Speed Rail Systems, 2014
Source: Adapted from International Union of Railways. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Shinkansen High Speed Rail Network

Travel Times before and after the Introduction of a High Speed Rail Service (hours)
Source: International Union of Railways, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Evolution of the French TGV, 1981-2005
Name TGV Paris Sud-Est TGV Atlantique AVE TGV Reseau Eurostar TGV Duplex TGV Thalys TGV NG Introduction 1981 1989 1991 1993 1994 1996 2005 Operating Speed 168 mph (270 km/h) 186 mph (300 km/h) 186 mph 300km/h 225 mph (360 km/h) Design Speed 200 mph (320 km/h) 225 mph (360 km/hr) Speed Record 236 mph (380 km/h) 320 mph (515 km/h) N/A Maximum speed on normal railways 138 mph (220 km/h) No running 100 mph (160 km/h) unknown 156 mph (250 km/h) Comments Famous Orange TGV Rail Speed Record TGV for Spain Pressure Sealed Strictly not a TGV Double decker International TGV Next Generation Source: adapted from Oliver Keating, High Speed Trains, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Breakeven Distances between Conventional Rail, High Speed Rail and Air Transportation
Air Advantageous over Conventional Rail High Speed Rail Competitive Source: Adapted from Commission for Integrated Transport, London (2004) High-speed rails: international comparisons, Steer Davies Gleave, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Modal Share before and after the Introduction of High Speed Rail
Source: International Union of Railways, Madrid and Seville are 471 km apart. Paris and Brussels are 320 km apart Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Socioeconomic Context of High Speed Rail
Criteria Issues Goals Mitigate congestion and demand along high density interurban corridors. Extending services into lower density regions for political purposes (e.g. social equity) lead to economic failure. Spatial Structure Limited impacts on the spatial structure. Routes supporting the existing spatial structure are the most effective. Limited number of stations that are well connected to their metropolitan areas most effective. HSR stations should be hubs of regional transport systems. Investments Very high construction and operation costs. Land (expropriation costs) are particularly high to secure a corridor. Cost overruns common. Limited or no profitability. Most costs are usually subsidized. Demand Significant time savings compared to existing services. Initial increase in the demand, but a stabilization after 2 years. Lower demand than forecasted common. Significant impacts on air services on distances less than 700km. Low cost airlines able to compete. Economic Impacts Little or no generation of new economic activities. Service and touristic sectors favored. Tendency to consolidate activities in the most connected locations (large cities). Medium-sized cities usually negatively impacted. Environmental Impacts Comparatively better than air transportation. Long term mitigation of environmental impacts during construction. Source: Adapted from Albalate, D. and G. Bel (2012) The Economics and Politics of High Speed Rail: Lessons from Experiences Abroad", Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Page 172. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Containerization of Commodities

Growth Factors behind the Containerization of Commodities
Outcome Growing availability of containers More containers available on freight markets. Ubiquitous transport product. Rising demand and commodity prices More commodities in circulation (usage of containerization to accommodate growth). New producers and consumers (marginal markets penetration). Fluctuations and rises in bulk shipping rates Decrease in the ratio cargo value per ton shipping rate for commodities. Volatility (rates) and risk (hedging). Search for options to bulk shipping. Low container shipping rates Increase in the ratio cargo value per TEU shipping rate for commodities. Relative rate stability. Containerization more attractive as an option. Imbalances in container shipping rates Export subsidy for return cargo. Empty containers repositioning Pools of containers available for backhauls. Processing Processing close to production shifts from bulk to containerized shipping. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

IMF All Commodity Index, Baltic Dry Index and Container Shipping Rates, 2000-2015 (2000=100)
Source: IMF, Baltic Exchange, UNCTAD and Shanghai Shipping Exchange. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

IMF All Commodity Index and Average Container Shipping Rates, 2000-2015 (2000=100)

Retail Price of Coffee, 1980-2016
Source: International Coffee Organization, Note: ICO Composite is the price calculated based on the market share of exports of each group of coffee. The calculation of the ICO composite indicator price is weighted as follows: Colombian Milds: 15% Other Milds: 30% Brazilian Naturals: 20% Robustas: 35% Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Comparison Between Bulk and Containerized Commodity Transportation
Bulk (Grain, Minerals, Oil) Containerized Sectors Primary / Transformation Manufacturing / Retailing Driving force Cost / Volume Time / Flexibility Mode of shipment Large batches Small shipments Frequency Low High Flows One way More balanced Terminals Dedicated by commodity General container Seasonality From low (energy) to high (agriculture) Low (retail cycles) Exchange Markets Mass (futures / forward) Niche (spot) Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

From Bulk to Containers: Breaking Economies of Scale
Container as an independent load unit. Minimal load unit; one TEU container. Entry Barriers Limited differences in scale economies for a producer. Incremental / linear cost-volume function. Required Volumes New producers (smaller). Product differentiation (more variety). Market Potential Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains
Bulk Commodity Chain Supplier Customer Port Point-to-Point Consolidation center Complementarity Container port Pendulum Services Intermodal terminal Containerized Commodity Chain Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Commodity Group and Containerization Potential
Category (SITC) Examples Containerization (Existing or Potential) Food & Live Animals Meat, Fish, Wheat, Rice, Corn, Sugar, Coffee, Cocoa, Tea Low (grains) to high (cold chain products) Beverages & Tobacco Wine, Beer, Tobacco High Raw Materials Lumber, Rubber, Cotton, Iron ore Commodity specific Fuels & Lubricants Coal, Crude oil, Kerosene, Natural gas Very limited Animal & Vegetable Oils Olive oil, Corn oil Chemicals Salt, Fertilizers, Plastics Low to average Manufactured Goods Paper, Textiles, Cement, Iron & Steel, Copper Machinery & Transport Equipment Computer equipment, Televisions, Cars Very high (already containerized) Miscellaneous Manufactures Furniture, Clothes, Footwear, Cameras, Books, Toys Standard International Trade Classification Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Commodity Group and Containerization Level
Category (SITC) Examples Containerization Grains (~5%) Cold chain (~75%) 0. Food & Live Animals Meat, Fish, Wheat, Rice, Corn, Sugar, Coffee, Cocoa, Tea Coffee (~95%) 1. Beverages & Tobacco Wine, Beer, Tobacco High Iron ore Lumber Cotton 2. Raw Materials Lumber, Rubber, Cotton, Iron ore Coal (~2%) 3. Fuels & Lubricants Coal, Crude oil, Kerosene, Natural gas 4. Animal & Vegetable Oils Olive oil, Corn oil High 5. Chemicals Salt, Fertilizers, Plastics Low to average Standard International Trade Classification Cement Metals Paper Textiles 6. Manufactured Goods Paper, Textiles, Cement, Iron & Steel, Copper Vehicles 7. Machinery & Transport Equipment Computer equipment, Televisions, Cars Very high 8. Miscellaneous Manufactures Furniture, Clothes, Footwear, Cameras, Books, Toys Very high Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Containerized Weight for Selected Commodities
Commodity Pounds per cubic foot Weight in a 20 foot container Wheat 48 28 tons Corn 45 26 tons Dry peas, beans and lentils 37 22 tons Vegetable oil (e.g. canola) 60 30 tons (35 tons) Coffee (fresh beans) 35 21 tons Lumber (2x4s) Hay (e.g. alfalfa) 14 8 tons Potash 80 30 tons (46 tons) Coal (Anthracite) 70 30 tons (41 tons) Paper or wood pulp 75 30 tons (44 tons) 20 foot container can hold 1172 square foot 30 tons maximal load Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

American Containerized Trade, 2003
Source: MGI North America Port Congestion Impact Model Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Share of Main American International Trade Commodities Transported by Containership, 2000
Source: B. Hackett (2003) National Dredging Needs Study of U.S. Ports and Harbors: Update DRI-WEFA Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Shipping Time between Bulk Handling and Containerization (Canadian Wheat)
Bulk Handling System Days Container System Farm storage Start Local delivery 1 Primary elevator 40 Intermodal terminal 2 Rail hopper cars 11 Double stack train Export terminal 19 Container port Bulk ship 15 Containership Import terminal 10 Final customer End Total 97 21 Source: Adapted from B. Prentice (1998) Re-engineering Grain Logistics: Bulk Handling versus Containerization, Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Forum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 29-31, 1998 Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Challenges for the Containerization of Commodities
Issues Container availability Locational and load unit availability. Weight Limitations to about 30 tons (40 footer). 20 footer the preferable load unit (26-28 tons). Container preparation Pre-use and post-use cleaning (avoid contamination). Dedicated containers? Container loading, unloading and transloading Bulks difficult to load horizontally. Vertical loading / unloading (equipment). Transloading issues. Source loading. Weight distribution Containership load (10-14 tons per TEU). Trade imbalances create mitigation strategies. Land consumption at port terminals Space consumption (4 times more than bulk) mitigated by velocity. Existing distribution channels Considerable accumulated investments (modes & terminals). Established distribution practices. Modal shift inertia. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Monthly Softwood Lumber Shipments to China, 2007-2014
Source: Canada Statistics, COFI, Foreign Agricultural Service. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Mega Airport Projects Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Surface of the World's Largest Airport Terminals

Passenger Density of the World’s Largest Airports (In Passengers per Hectare)

Passengers Traffic, DFW, HKG and KIX, 1982-2016
Source: Dallas / Fort Worth International Airport, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Freight Traffic, DFW, HKG and KIX, 1982-2016
Source: Dallas / Fort Worth International Airport, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Hong Kong Chek Lap Kok Terminal
Skycity North Satellite Concourse 25R Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (under construction) Main Terminal 07L Terminal Expansion (Midfield Concourse) 25L Logistics and cargo area 07R To Kowloon and Hong Kong Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge (under construction) Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
17C 18L 13L 13R B A 17L D C 31R E 31L 36L 36R 35L 35C 35R Fort Worth Dallas Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Kansai International Airport
Terminal 2 24L Terminal 1 Sky Gate Bridge (To Osaka) 06L Logistics and cargo area 06R Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volumes and Market Share, 1980-2018

Minimum Annual Guarantee Rates per Acre for San Pedro Bay Container Terminals
Long Beach Piers Los Angeles Piers Year Pier A Pier C D/E/F Pier G Pier J Pier T APMT (P400) Eagle Marine (P300) Everport (B ) (YTI) B China Chipping (B ) Yang Ming (B ) TriPac (B ) 2006 $135,000.00 $112,000.00 $135,582.00 $113,000.00 $150,739.00 $156,583.00 $156,525.00 $156,528.00 $139,563.00 2007 $140,000.00 $133,227.00 $154,578.00 2008 $130,000.00 $170,000.00 $153,454.00 $159,228.00 2009 $165,000.00 $159,358.00 $128,570.00 2010 $150,000.00 $118,665.00 2011 $160,000.00 $180,000.00 $139,845.00 $161,761.00 2012 $175,000.00 $145,751.00 $166,541.00 2013 $169,440.00 $ 118,665.00 2014 $200,000.00 $190,000.00 $156,000.00 $172,829.00 2015 $220,000.00 $185,000.00 $176,286.00 2016 $270,000.00 $205,000.00 $179,812.00 2017 $210,000.00 $183,408.00 2018 $187,076.00 $166,357.00 2019 $310,000.00 $190,818.00 2020 $320,000.00 $194,634.00 2021 $330,000.00 $198,527.00 2022 $340,000.00 $202,498.00 2023 $350,000.00 $206,548.00 2024 $390,000.00 $210,679.00 2025 $214,893.00 2026 $219,191.00 2027 $223,575.00 2028 $228,047.00 2029 2030 Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Factors behind the Congestion of San Pedro Ports
ILWU / PMA Contract Shipping Alliances Increased Cargo Volumes Dwell Time on Terminal Truck Shortages Chassis Shortages Port Congestion Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Truck Turn Times, San Pedro Ports, 2015
Source: Harbor Trucking Association. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster

Container Traffic at Selected East Coast Ports, 1990-2017

Monthly Traffic in TEU, Port of Savannah, 2003-2017
Source: Georgia Ports. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Containerized Imports and Exports, Port of Savannah
Source: Georgia Ports. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Main Logistics and Industrial Development Zones in the Savannah Logistic Cluster
Owner Acreage Warehousing (sf) Bryan County Interstate Centre Bryan County 1074 9,000,000 CenterPoint Intermodal Center CenterPoint Properties 233 1,457,600 Chatham County Industrial Site Chatham County 1662 TBD Crossgate Industrial Park Solution Property Group 352 4,116,100 Crossroads Business Park SEDA 1661 2,711,000 Dean Forest Road Site North Point Industrial 131 I-16 Industrial Park Effingham County Development Authority 1739 Research Tract 3150 Effingham Industrial Park 550 NA Exley Tract South New Savannah LLC 754 6,000,000 Grande View Old Augusta Road Developers LLC 457 Riverport SLF 1440 15,500,000 McCormick-Kicklighter Tract 555 3,745,000 Morgan Center AMB 251 3,322,108 Newton Tract 720 2,900,000 Monteith Road 100 1,105,000 Northport Industrial Park 320 4,184,000 Savannah River International Trade Park GPA 433 Tradeport Business Center (West) Liberty County Development Authority 3590 Tradeport Business Center (East) 1644 Tremont Industrial Center Johnson Development 143 1,429,080 Belfast Commerce Centre Terrapointe 904 7,300,000 Sites above 100 acres. Source: Thomas & Hutton Engineering. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Crossroads Business Park
Source: Image courtesy of SEDA. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Inland Ports Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Some Terms Used to Define Inland Nodes
Definition Source Inland clearance depot A common-user inland facility, with public authority status, equipped with fixed installation, and offering services for handling and temporary storage of any kind of goods (including container) carried under customs transit by any applicable mode of inland surface transport, placed under customs control to clear goods for home use, warehousing, temporary admission, re-export, temporary storage for onward transit, and outright export. UNECE (1998), see also Roso (2005), Jaržemskis and Vasiliauskas (2007), Roso et al (2009) Inland container depot A common user facility with public authority status, equipped with fixed installations and offering services for handling and temporary storage of import/export stuffed and empty containers. Roso (2005), Jaržemskis and Vasiliauskas (2007), Roso et al (2009) Intermodal freight centre A concentration of economic independent companies working in freight transport and supplementing services on a designated area where a change of transport units between traffic modes can take place. Cardebring and Warnecke (1995), Roso et al (2009) Inland freight terminal Any facility, other than a seaport or an airport, operated on a common-user basis, at which cargo in international trade is received or dispatched. UNECE (1998), see also Jaržemskis & Vasiliauskas (2007), Roso et al (2009) Inland port An inland port is located inland, generally far from seaport terminals. It supplies regions with an intermodal terminal or a merging point for traffic modes – rail, air, and truck routes – involved in distributing merchandise that comes from seaports. An inland port usually provides international logistics and distribution services, including freight forwarding, customs brokerages, integrated logistics, and information systems. Economic Commission for Europe (2001), see also Jaržemskis and Vasiliauskas (2007), Roso et al (2009) Dry port A dry port is an inland intermodal terminal directly connected to seaport(s) with high capacity transport mean(s), where customers can leave/pick up their standardized units as if directly to a seaport. Dry port can be understood as an inland setting with cargo-handling facilities to allow several functions to be carried out, for example, consolidation and distribution, temporary storage, custom clearance, connection between transport modes, allowing agglomeration of institutions (both private and public) which facilitates the interactions between different stakeholders along the supply chain. Leveque and Roso (2002), Roso (2005), Roso et al (2009), Ng and Gujar (2009) Transfer terminal This type of terminal is almost exclusively aimed at transshipping continental freight. There is almost no collection and distribution in the region where the terminal is located. The freight arrives at and departs from the terminal in huge flows. The terminal is characterized by large areas that enable direct transshipment between trains and/or barges. The corresponding bundling model is the hub-and-spoke network. Wiegmans et al (1999) Distribution terminal At this terminal value added is created in the form of an extra service provided by the terminal operator. From location A, B, and C continental freight arrives at the terminal and is consolidated into shipments for customers X, Y, and Z. One or more terminal services is added by the terminal operator to the shipments at the terminal. The corresponding bundling model is line network. Hinterland terminal Small continental cargo shipments are brought to the hinterland terminal and consolidated into bigger freight flows. These bigger freight flows are further transported by larger transport means such as trains or barges. The corresponding bundling model is the trunk line with a collection and distribution network. Source: Notteboom and Rodrigue (2009). Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Basic Requirements for Inland Ports
Intermodal Rail Terminal (Massification) Logistics Activities (Agglomeration) Rail Corridor to the Gateway Co-Location Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Scale Effect of Inland Ports
Proximity / Clustering Inland Port Regional Load Center Network Satellite terminal Competition / Complementarity Scale Logistics Zone Site Co-location Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Main Advantages of Co-location
Factor Advantages Real estate Lower land acquisition costs. Higher acquisition capital. Joint land use planning. Specialization Rail company; terminal development and operations. Real estate promoter; logistic zone development and management. Interdependency Respective customers. Joint marketing. Drayage Priority gate access. Shorter distances. More delivery trips. Higher reliability. Asset utilization Better usage level of containers and chassis. Chassis pools. Empty container depots. Information technologies Integration of terminal management systems with inventory management systems. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Functions of Inland Terminals
Port Corridor A B C Drayage A – Satellite Terminal Close to a port facility; Handle traffic and functions that have become too expensive at the port; Container transloading. B – Load Center Access regional markets; Intermodal, warehousing, and logistics functions; Linked with logistics parks and foreign trade zones. C – Transshipment Link systems of freight circulation either through the same mode (e.g. rail-to-rail) or through intermodalism (e.g. rail-to-truck). Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Main Driving Forces behind the Setting of Inland Terminals
Land and labor costs as significant logistics costs. Intensification of activities at the main terminal and the search of lower value locations supporting less intensive freight activities. Input Costs Increases the intermodal capacity of inland freight distribution. Diminishing returns such as congestion, energy and empty movements. Capacity and Congestion Lower distribution costs and improved capacity. Allow ports to compete and to extend their cargo base. A commercial and trade development tool. Hinterland Access Integrated within supply chain management practices. Freight distribution centers, custom clearance, container depots and logistical capabilities. Supply Chain Management Economic development strategies, land use policy, and financial incentives by port authorities and economic development agencies. Policies related to foreign trade zones and customs procedures. Cargo safety and security procedures. Policy and Regulation Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Functional Pairing of Inland Ports
Hinterland Corridor Inland Port Gateway Foreland Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Massification of Transportation in Inland Systems
Inland Load Center Network Formation and Logistics Port Port Port On-dock / near dock rail Port-Centric IT IT Direct truck Corridor Rail / Barge Source: Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2011) "Port Regionalization: Improving Port Competitiveness by Reaching beyond the Port Perimeter", Port Technology International, No. 52, pp IT Inland Terminal IT IT Inland Port Intermodal Industrial Park End haul Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Modal Shift and Inland Freight Diversion
Gateway Road Flows Relations Satellite Terminal Inland Port Rail B B Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Functional Relations between Inland Terminals and their Hinterland
Freight Region Logistics Pole FLOWS & INTEGRATION Port I II III Inland Terminal Logistics activities Source: adapted from T. Wakeman (2008) Marine Transportation of International Freight for the Northeast Corridor, in Anticipating 2025 in Northeast Corridor Transportation: Aerial, Highway, Marine, and Rail Technologies & Linkages, Institute of Public Administration, Public Policy Forum, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. pp Retailing and manufacturing activities Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Profitability of Inland Terminals: Balancing Volume and Service Area
Gateway Port High Profitability TEU Potential High volume potential and low haul costs (Ideal Case) High haul costs compensated by high volume Inland Terminal 20,000 TEU 10 km Inland corridor Low volume compensated by low haul costs Bad situation with high haul costs. Limited costumers Volume 15 km High Service Area Low Profitability 60 km Low Service Area Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Inland Terminal Life Cycle
Planning Setting Growth Maturity Decline Subsidies / Investments Traffic Profit Concept Operations begin Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Inland Terminal Life Cycle
Phase Characteristics Planning Relevance and viability studies. Local support. Attraction of users and investment commitments. High risk and subsidy level. Setting Construction of terminal and distribution facilities. First users (some can be transitional). Growth Realization of market potential. Growth of traffic. Capture of additional users. Clustering effect and generation of added value. Maturity Traffic stabilization. Available space filled and/or few new users. Non-commercial activities (housing). Revenue generation optimal. Decline Change in market conditions. Departure of users. Reemergence of subsidies. If about 95% of all ideas / productions do not reach the market, we can assume that such a figure applies to inland ports. Source: adapted from Inland Port Transportation Evaluation Guide, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Added Value Activities Performed at an Inland Port
Activity Functions Consolidation / Deconsolidation Inventory management practices. Cargo consolidated (or deconsolidated) into container loads (paletization). Attaining a batch size (group of containers) fitting a barge or a train shipment. Breaking down batches so that they can be picked up by trucks. Transloading Change in to load unit (Maritime / Domestic). Consolidation, deconsolidation and transloading commonly mixed. Postponement Opportunity to route freight according to last minute and last mile considerations (dwell time). Buffer within a supply chain. Light transformations Forms of product and package transformations (packaging, labeling). Customization to national, cultural or linguistic market characteristics. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ)
Issue Example Custom clearance Done inland instead of at the gateway port. Simpler and faster. Higher security level (lower insurance rates). Consignment can stay for an unlimited amount of time in the FTZ. Consignee gets further advance notice that shipment is ready. Quotas can be managed through postponement. Duties and Fees Duties and merchandise processing fee not paid until the consignment is released and moved out of the FTZ (storage). Not paid if goods are exported or re-exported. Deferred if goods moved to another FTZ. Not paid for damaged, defective or obsolete goods. Lower insurance rates since no duties. If transformation is performed in the FTZ, the duty class may change (Select the taxation regime). Settlement Vendors often not paid until consignments leave the facility for delivery (Delay settlement). Remove damaged or defective products from the settlement. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ)
Issue Example Custom clearance Done inland instead of at the gateway port (merchandises go directly to the FTZ). Simpler and faster. Consignment can stay for an unlimited amount of time in the FTZ. Consignee gets further advance notice that shipment is ready. Quotas can be managed through postponement. Duties and Fees (Duty exemptions, duty deferral) Duties and merchandise processing fee not paid until the consignment is released and moved out of the FTZ (storage). Not paid if goods are exported or re-exported. Deferred if goods moved to another FTZ. Not paid for damaged, defective or obsolete goods. Lower insurance premiums since no duties. Settlement Vendors often not paid until consignments leave the facility for delivery (Delay settlement). Remove damaged or defective products from the settlement. Security Higher security level since under jurisdiction of national customs. Lower insurance premiums. Transformations and manufacturing (Tariff inversion) Product remarked or labeled to meet national requirements. If transformation is performed in the FTZ, the duty class may change (Select the taxation regime). Added value activities performed in a FTZ not subject to custom duties. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Main Governance Models for Inland Ports
Characteristics Implications Single Ownership A public or a private actor entirely responsible for development and operations. Single vision and conformity to a specific role. Potential lack of flexibility in view to changes (single mandate). Potential conflicts with surrounding communities. Public – Private Partnership Help combine public planning of infrastructures with private operational expertise. Public (local) interests represented. Tendency to prioritize public interests over private interests. Landlord Model Public ownership and private operations (a form of PPP). Long term concession agreements. Managerial flexibility between the owner, the site manager and the operators. Most of the risk assumed by private operators. Source: Adapted from B. Slack et C. Comtois (2010) « Identification des modèles de gouvernance d’un pôle logistique en lien avec la réalité québécoise », Aménagement d’un pôle logistique au Québec: cadre d’analyse de l’étude de faisabilité, Étude 1.2. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

International Inventory of Inland Ports and Port Centric Logistics Zones

Some Initiatives by European and North American Port Authorities to Develop Inland Links
Port authority Project Aim Europe Antwerp Trilogiport – Liège Other planned locations Joint development of a 100 ha logistics platform along the Albert Canal. Status: Joint entity under the legal status of an ‘economic interest grouping’ Lisbon Puerta de Atlantico – Mostoles Development of a logistical platform in Mostoles in the outskirts of Madrid. Status: Contract signed, January 2008 Rotterdam EIT – European Inland Terminals Minority shareholding in inland terminals in immediate hinterland via separate holding. Status: abandoned Barcelona tm-concept (Terminal Maritima) Joint partnerships to set up dry ports / logistics zones in hinterland. Status: tmT (Toulouse), tmZ (Zaragozza), tmM (Madrid) are operational. New projects in Perpignan, Montpellier and Lyon Marseille Inland port Lyon Development of Lyon as a multimodal satellite port of Marseille. Status: Société d’économie mixte founded in Port authority is one of shareholders. Joint barge and rail services between Lyon and Marseille HHLA - Hamburg Rail terminals HHLA ha participations in rail terminals (Melnik, Budapest, etc.) to support its rail products via Potzug, Metrans and HHCE North America New York / New Jersey Port Inland Distribution Network Network of rail and barge services to inland and port terminals. Status: barge service to Albany abandoned in 2006. Virginia Virginia Inland Port Setting of an inland rail terminal at Front Royal. Status: Virginia Inland port operational Los Angeles & Long Beach Alameda corridor Joint governance of the Alameda Corridor Transport Authority. Rail link between the satellite rail terminals of downtown Los Angeles (BNSF, UP) and on-dock and near dock rail facilities. Status: operational with more than 10,000 TEU per day Source: Notteboom and Rodrigue (2009). Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine / Scheldt Delta

Selected European Inland Ports, Average Traffic, 2007-10 (in TEU)

Modal Split at Selected European Inland Terminals, 2007
Source: adapted from “The future of freight transport and inland shipping in Europe 2010 – 2011”, Dutch Inland Shipping Information Agency, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Intermodal Terminals and Selected Co-Located Logistic Zones Projects in North America

Ownership of North American Intermodal Rail Terminals

Inland port of agglomeration: Lyon terminal
Actors Functions Shareholders URBAN LOAD CENTER Compagnie Nationale du Rhone (64%) Grand Port Maritime de Marseille (16%) Compagnie fluviale de transport (13.5%) Naviland Cargo (6.5%) Barge shuttle operations Rail Shuttle operations Partners Logistics services River shutter containers Logirhone Arnal Progeco Port Edouard Herriot Insertion / Distribution Marseille Lyon urban agglomeration Corridor (310 km) Inland terminal Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Inland port in a competitive market area: Zaragoza Maritime Terminal
Actors Functions Partners REGIONAL LOAD CENTER Port of Barcelona Mercazaragoza Municipality of Zaragoza Mercasa national company Road shuttle operations Rail Shuttle operations Logistics operators Road transport operators Handling companies RENFE (National rail company) Logistics services Logistics area of Mercazaragoza Insertion / Distribution Barcelona Center / North of Spain, Portugal Corridor (260 km) Inland terminal Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Inland port : Terminal Intermodal Logistica de Hidalgo (TILH)
Actors Functions Partners REGIONAL LOAD CENTER Hutchinson Port Holdings Ferrosur KCSM Road shuttle operations Rail Shuttle operations Logistics services Insertion / Distribution Inland terminal TILH Lazaro Cardenas Veracruz PACIFIC ATLANTIC Corridor (600 km) Corridor (500 km) Mexico Metropolitan Area Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Crossborder satellite terminal: Venlo
Actors Functions Partners SATELLITE TERMINAL European Container Terminal (ECT) APL Logistics Betutweroute (Key Rail) Road shuttle operations Barge Shuttle operations Trimodal Container Terminal Venlo Consolidation / Deconsolidation Custom clearance Venlo Netherlands Insertion / Distribution Rotterdam Germany Betuweroute (160 km) TCTV Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Gateway logistics: Savannah
Actors Functions Savannah River International Trade Park (SRITP) Savannah Port Authority International Park (SPAIP) Northport (NP) SATELLITE TERMINAL Savannah Port Authority Transloading Import Logistics Savannah Economic Development Authority Crossroads Business Park (CBP) Duke Realty NorthPoint Real Estate (NPRE) CSX Railway NS Railway Near dock rail (CSX,NS) Southeast USA Insertion / Distribution Savannah Cordele Intermodal Center Logistics cluster (SRITP,SPAIP,CBP,NPRE) Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

LOAD CENTER TRANSMODAL Insertion / Distribution
BNSF Logistics Park Actors Functions LOAD CENTER TRANSMODAL BNSF CenterPoint Prologis Joliet Intermodal Terminal BNSF Logistics Park Import logistics Rail-Truck-Rail Insertion / Distribution Joliet Intermodal Terminal Seattle / Tacoma BNSF Logistics Park Eastern Seaboard Los Angeles / Long Beach Midwest Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

CenterPoint-KCS Intermodal Freight Gateway
Actors Functions LOAD CENTER TRANSMODAL KCS Railway CenterPoint Hunt Midwest Port Authority of Kansas City CenterPoint – KCS Intermodal Freight Gateway (IFG) Import logistics Rail-Truck-Rail Insertion / Distribution KC Intermodal Laredo IFG Lazero Cardenas Chicago Mexico USA Midwest / Great Plains Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Transport Terminal Governance

Transport, Trade and Governance
Trade facilitation E-commerce Trade agreements Transport ICT Logistics Transport agreements Source: adapted from UNESCAP. E-governance Governance Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Shifts in the Intermodal Transport Industry
Growth Maturity Geographical and functional diffusion of containerization. Massive investments. Rationalisation (corridors and sites). Revolution Evolution New standards, practices and technologies. Increasing returns. Incremental changes. Decreasing returns. Deregulation Governance Consolidation (maritime, rail and trucking). Emergence of large operators. PPP. Supply chain control. Added-value-capture. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Governance and Transport Terminals
Criteria Economic Sector Terminal Sector Participation Involvement of private capital Access to terminal assets by the private sector (national and foreign) Fairness Consistent regulations Modal and intermodal policies Decency Secure property rights Secure ownership and operational contracts Accountability Measures for litigation Terminal operators complying to policies Terms for renegotiation Transparency Clear regulatory process Available information about terms and renegotiation Efficiency Limited compliance costs Compliance costs below operating revenues Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Transport Terminal Governance
Ownership (Mostly public) Focused on compliance and revenue generation. Challenge of rent seeking behavior. Operations (Increasingly private) Usage of concessions. High productivity levels. Generation of externalities. PPP Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Factors Behind Changes in Governance of Terminals
Traffic Decline Over competition Duplication of infrastructure Ineffective management Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Conditions for Port Privatization
Bidding process Open and transparent bidding process. Infrastructures Capacity and quality of port infrastructure as well as for hinterland access. Regulations Safety and labor conditions. Retrenchment and retraining of labor. Port authority Landlord model with clear role. Customs Efficient and transparent procedures. Source: adapted from UNCTAD (2007) Globalization of Port Logistics: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries, December 2007, Geneva. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Forms of Port Privatization
Public sector role Private sector role Pure public Owns and operate port None (some services) Landlord / Regulator Owns port and regulate private sector Operations Greenfield concession (Build-Operate-Transfer) Negotiation with private companies, regulation Brownfield concession (Long-term lease of existing facilities) Pure private None (regulation) Publicization Owns and operates port Operation and maintenance Source: Adapted from Pagano, A.M, G.W.Y. Wang, O.S. Sanchez and R. Ungos (2013) “Impact of privatization on port efficiency and effectiveness: results from Panama and US ports”, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Forms of Port Terminal Privatization
Type Nature Sale Terminal is transferred on a freehold basis but with the requirement that it will be used only to provide terminal services. Concession Agreement Long-term lease of terminal land and facilities and the requirement that the concessionaire undertakes specified capital investments to build, expand, or maintain the cargo-handling facilities, equipment, and infrastructure. Capital lease Similar to a concession except that the private sector is not explicitly required to invest in the facilities and equipment other than for normal maintenance and replacement over the life of the agreement. Management contract Private sector assumes responsibility for the allocation of terminal labor and equipment and provides services to the terminal users in the name of the public owner. The public sector retains control over all the assets. Service contract The private sector performs specific terminal activities. The arrangement differs from a management contract in that the public sector provides the management, labor, and equipment required to accomplish these activities. Equipment lease Can be in various forms involving leaseback arrangements or supplier credits. These agreements are used to amortize the costs to the terminal for new equipment and to ensure a reliable supply of spare parts and, often, a guaranteed level of service/reliability from this equipment. Source: adapted from AT Operators. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Public and Private Roles in Port Management
Ownership Port admin. Nautical management Port infrastructure Super-structure Cargo handling Pilotage Towage Mooring services Dredging Public service port Tool port Landlord port Corporatized port Public Responsibility Private service port Private Responsibility Source: adapted from The World Bank (2007) Port Reform Toolkit, Second Edition. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Ownership of European Port Authorities
Source: P. Verhoeven (2011) European Port Governance, European Seaports Organization (ESPO), Brussels. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Port Community System Exporter Importer Freight Forwarder
Shipping Agency Customs Port Community System Port Authority Ocean Carrier Source: adapted from J. Garcia de la Guia (2010) “Technology for the Port Cluster Efficiency: valenciaportpcs.net”, Terminal Operators Conference Europe, Valencia, Spain, June. Container Depot Inland Carrier Terminal Operator Foreland Hinterland Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Selected Port Community Systems
System Name System Description Singapore TradeXchange Single electronic window for workflow entries, submissions and enquiries relating to all sea ports, airports, maritime authorities, customs and controlling agencies. Rotterdam (Netherlands) PortBase 2009 Merger between Rotterdam’s Port infolink (2002) and Amsterdam’s PortNET (2000). Online platform and communication service that links freight forwarders, agents and terminals to Customs. Antwerp APCS (Antwerp Port Community System) The Port Authority, Customs, shippers, shipping companies, ship’s agents, forwarders, Terminal operators, road and rail carriers, barge operators, logistic service providers are connected. Hamburg DAKOSY Web-based freight tracking and order entry system for shippers and freight forwarders. New York/New Jersey FIRST (Freight Information Real-time System for Transport) Internet-based, real-time network that integrates sources of freight location and status into a single web portal to allow port users to access cargo and port information. Valencia valenciaportpcs.net Online platform labeled as a port community system linking freight forwarders, Customs, terminal information systems and gate management systems. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Factors behind the Interest of Equity Firms in Transport Terminals
Asset (Intrinsic value) Globalization made terminal assets more valuable. Terminals occupy premium locations (waterfront) that cannot be substituted. Traffic growth linked with valuation; same amount of land generates a higher income. Terminals as fairly liquid assets (perception). Source of income (Operational value) Income (rent) linked with traffic volume. Constant revenue stream with limited, or predictable, seasonality. Traffic growth expectations result in income growth expectations. Diversification (Risk mitigation value) Sectorial and geographical asset diversification. Terminals at different locations help mitigate risks linked with a specific regional or national market. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development
Port Holding Port Regionalization FORELAND (Horizontal Integration) HINTERLAND (Vertical Integration) Port Inland Port Terminal Port Rail / Barge Distribution Center Intermediate hub Maritime Shipping Port Terminal Operations Inland Modes and Terminals Distribution Centers Transport Chain Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Container Terminal Surface of the World's Major Port Holdings, 2010

Container Terminal Surface of the World's Major Port Holdings, 2015

Typology of Global Port Operators
Process Main Points Ownership Examples Horizontal Integration (Stevedores companies) Port operations is the core business; Investment in container terminals for expansion and diversification. Public (Government, Port authorities) DPW, HHLA, PSA Private Eurogate, HPH, ICTSI, SSA Vertical Integration (Container shipping companies) Main business is maritime shipping; Investment in container terminals as a support function. Public None APL, Evergreen, Hanjin Creation of a parent company specializing in container terminals. COSCO APM Source: adapted from T. Mori (2006) The Study about a Strategy of Global Terminal Operators, Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Stevedores Maritime Shipping Companies Financial Holdings Horizontal integration Vertical integration Portfolio diversification Port operations is the core business; Investment in container terminals for expansion and diversification. Maritime shipping is the main business; Investment in container terminals as a support function. Financial assets management is the main business; Investment in container terminals for valuation and revenue generation. Expansion through direct investment. Expansion through direct investment or through parent companies. Expansion through acquisitions, mergers and reorganization of assets. PSA (Public), HHLA (Public), Eurogate (Private), HPH (Private), ICTSI (Private), SSA (Private). APM (Private), COSCO (Public), MSC (Private), APL (Private), Hanjin (Private), Evergreen (Private). DPW (Sovereign Wealth Fund), Ports America (AIG; Fund), RREEF (Deutsche Bank; Fund), Macquarie Infrastructure (Fund), Morgan Stanley Infrastructure (Fund). Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Stevedores Horizontal integration (Port operations is the core business; Investment in container terminals for expansion and diversification). Expansion through direct investment. PSA (Public), HPH (Private), HHLA (Public), Eurogate (Private), ICTSI (Private), SSA (Private). Maritime Shipping Companies Vertical integration (Maritime shipping is the main business; Investment in container terminals as a support function). Expansion through direct investment or through parent companies. APM (Private), COSCO (Public), MSC (Private), APL (Private), Hanjin (Private), Evergreen (Private). Financial Holdings Portfolio diversification (Financial assets management is the main business; Investment in container terminals for valuation and revenue generation). Expansion through acquisitions, mergers and reorganization of assets. DPW (Sovereign Wealth Fund), Ports America (AIG; Fund), RREEF (Deutsche Bank; Fund), Macquarie Infrastructure (Fund), Morgan Stanley Infrastructure (Fund). Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Control of Global Container Terminals
Source: Drewry Shipping Consultants, Annual Review of Global Container Terminal Operators. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Largest Global Container Terminal Operators by Equity-Based Throughput, 2013
Source: Drewry Shipping Consultants, Annual Review of Global Container Terminal Operators. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Number of Terminals and Total Hectares Controlled by the Twelve Largest Port Holdings
14 16 13 14 10 20 11 9 42 50 38 47 Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Container Terminals of the Four Major Port Holdings, 2010

Regional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of the Twelve Largest Global Terminal Operators (Hectares, 2013) Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Container Terminals of Some Minor Port Holdings, 2010

Inter-firm Relationships in the Three Main Container Ports of the Rhine-Scheldt Delta, 2015
HUTCHISON PORT HOLDINGS PSA 20% Majority shareholding 100% ANTWERP Minority Shareholding (4) ECT NYK MSC Home terminal 50% 50% North Sea Terminal 50% 50% MSC Delta MSC Terminal PSA HNN 100% Europe Terminal CYKH Alliance Deurganck Terminal 93% Delta Terminal 50% 50% Antwerp International Terminal (AIT) 50% New World Alliance Shipping Line Waal- and Eemhaven 100% DP World Delwaidedock 100% (Global) Terminal Operator DP World Euromax phase 1 60% 51% 42.5% ZIM Line (1) Antwerp Gateway (3) 20% 30% Terminal Source: Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2010) “The Corporate Geography of Global Container Terminal Operators” Rotterdam World Gateway (Maasvlakte II) Cosco Pacific 20% PORT 10% CMA-CGM (2) 10% Financial Holding APM Terminal Rotterdam 35% 65% OCHZ 100% Zeebrugge International Port APM Terminals Maasvlakte II APM Terminals 100% 100% 75% ROTTERDAM Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG) APM Terminal 25% ZEEBRUGGE Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Inter-firm Relationships in the Three Main Container Ports of North America, 2015
Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan APL 100% Global Gateway South NYK 100% Yusen Terminals 100% Mitsui OSK 61% TraPac Los Angeles Berth 136 Global Container Terminals APM Terminals (AP Moller Group) APM Terminals Pier 400 100% 100% Evergreen 70% Evergreen Terminal 30% New York Container Terminal Yangming 40% West Basin Container Terminal 20% 20% LOS ANGELES Global Terminal and Container Services China Shipping Deutsche Bank RREEF 100% LONG BEACH APM Terminals Port Elizabeth Matson 35% Terminal C60 65% 100% MSC 50% Terminal A Maher Terminals 100% Maher Terminal 50% OOIL 100% Long Beach Container Terminal Ports America Source: Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2010) “The Corporate Geography of Global Container Terminal Operators” 50% Port Newark Container Terminal K-Lines 100% Pier G Berth 100% 50% NEW YORK Hyundai 100% California United Terminals Stevedoring Services of America MSC Cosco Pacific 51% Pacific Container Terminal 49% Hanjin Macquarie Infrastructure AIG Highstar Capital 34% Total Terminals International 20% MSC 46% Shipping Line Terminal Operator Terminal PORT Financial Holding Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Inter-firm Relationships in the Main Container Ports of the Pearl River Delta, 2015
GUANGZHOU APM Terminals (AP Moller Group) Guangzhou South China Oceangate Container Terminal 39% Cosco Pacific 20% 41% China Shipping Group Guangzhou Port Group 40% Nansha Container Terminal 60% Nanhai International Container Terminals 50% ZHUHAI 51% Guangzhou Huangpu Xingang Terminal PSA Zhuhai International Container Terminals 50% 49% Guangzhou Huangpu Xinsha Terminal Shenzhen Yantian Port Group Modern Terminals 25% Dongguan Container Terminal 50% COSCO-HIT Terminal 50% Cosco Pacific Yantian International Container Terminals 50% 15% 55% HUTCHISON PORT HOLDINGS 67% Hong Kong International Terminals 20% Da Chan Bay Terminal One Source: Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2010) “The Corporate Geography of Global Container Terminal Operators” 65% 35% Shenzhen Municipal Government 100% Modern Terminals Asia Port Services 20% Shekou Container Terminals 40% 80% 40% Asia Container Terminals 8% Chiwan Container Terminal China Merchants Holdings International DP World 25% DP World Hong Kong 33% China Merchant Mawan Port 84% HONG KONG SHENZHEN Shipping Line Terminal Operator Terminal PORT Financial Holding Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

The Strategies of Port Operators
Financial Assets Large financial assets and the capacity to tap global financial markets. Terminals as equity generating returns. Managerial Expertise Experience in the management of containerized operations. IT and compliance with a variety of procedures. Gateway Access Establishing hinterland access. Creation of a “stronghold”. Provides a stable flow of containerized shipments. Development of related inland logistics activities. Leverage Negotiate with maritime shippers and inland freight transport companies favorable conditions. Some are subdiaries of maritime shipping companies. Traffic Capture Capture and maintain traffic for their terminals. Global Perspective Comprehensive view of the state of the industry. Anticipate developments and opportunities. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Major Mergers and Acquisitions in the Container Port Industry since 1997-2004
Acquirer / Firm A Acquired / Firm B Type Resulting firm Date of merger / acquisition Sum involved ($US million) No. of terminal projects involved Neptune Orient Lines American President Lines A APL 1997 825 8 Eurokai Bremen Lagerhaus Gesellschaft (BLG) M Eurogate 1999 undisclosed 10 Eurogate Holding Contship Italia Eurogate 34% Eurokai 66% Acquirer’s subsidiary 6 Maersk Line SeaLand Maersk SeaLand, CSX Lines, CSX Intermodal and CSX World Terminals 800 29 of which 13 under CSXWT P&O Ports International Terminal Operating Co. (US) acquirer’s subsidiary 93 17 Hesse Natie Noord Natie Hesse Noord Natie 2001 22 Hutchison Port Holdings Europe Combined Terminals B.V. 4 International business division of ICTSI absorbed into HPH’s portfolio PSA Corp. May 2002 717 Nippon Yusen Kaisha Ceres Terminals October 2002 9 CMA-CGM and P&O Ports EGIS Ports S.A. Portsynergy France S.A. July 2003 3 Canadian Stevedoring January 2003 80.5 Dubai Ports World absorbed into DPW’s portfolio December 2004 1 150 12 Source: updated from Olivier, D., F. Parola, B. Slack and J.J. Wang (2007) “The Time Scale of Internationalisation: The Case of the Container Port Industry”, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 2007, 9, (1–34). Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Major Mergers and Acquisitions in the Container Port Industry since 2005-2007
Acquirer / Firm A Acquired / Firm B Type Resulting firm Date of merger / acquisition Sum involved ($US million) No. of terminal projects involved Peel Holdings Mersey Docks & Harbour A acquirer’s subsidiary June 2005 771 2 Babcock & Brown Infrastructure PD Ports Acquirer’s subsidiary January 2006 1.2 bn CdM Belgium Simon Group June 2006 undisclosed Goldman Sachs (Admiral Acquisitions UK Ltd.) Associated British Ports Company to retain name (ABPH) August 2006 4,750 21 Macquarie Infrastructure Halterm Company to retain name Nov 2006 CDN$172.75 1 AIG P&O Ports Ports America Feb 2007 450 6 Morgan Stanley Montreal Gateways 460 Ontario Teachers Pension Fund OOCL (NA portfolio) Company to retain name (TSI) Jan 2007 2 235 4 Fraser Surrey Docks Company to retain name (FSD) Undisclosed Deutsche Bank RREEF Maher Terminals Inc Company to retain name (Maher Terminals) March 2007 MTC Assets combined with Ports America (2008) July 2007 9 Goldman Sachs (Infrastructure Partners) SSA Marine (Carrix) Company to retain name and mgt 60+ Rauma Stevedoring and Botnia Shipping October 2007 140 Citi Infrastructure DP World Australia EA December 2010 1,500 5 Source: updated from Olivier, D., F. Parola, B. Slack and J.J. Wang (2007) “The Time Scale of Internationalisation: The Case of the Container Port Industry”, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 2007, 9, (1–34). Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Freight Cluster Governance
Scale and scope Recognition of the city as a hub / terminal. Multimodal and intermodal. Across jurisdictions. Actors Recognition of the stakes of various private and public actors. Different forms of ownership and jurisdiction. Decision taking Consensus and ad hoc. Public-private partnerships. “Coopetition”. Policy Able to influence and articulate incentives (zoning, public investments, regulations). Information technologies Freight community system; coordination and integration of information systems. Labor Foster training and research needs. Copyright © , Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University. For personal or classroom use ONLY. This material (including graphics) is not public domain and cannot be published, in whole or in part, in ANY form (printed or electronic) and on any media without consent. This includes conference presentations. Permission MUST be requested prior to use.

Applications and Case Studies – Part I

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Applications and Case Studies – Part I"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Applications and Case Studies – Part I

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Applications and Case Studies – Part I"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback